INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE DEINSTITUTIONALISATION PROCESS IN

GEORGIA

June 2011Andrew A. Dunn

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe consultant, and UNICEF, wishes to thank the staff of Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA), Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) and the Non Government Organisations (NGOs,) especially Georgia Association of Social Workers (GASW,) Children of Georgia, EveryChild and Save the Children for giving their time, knowledge and expertise during the preparation of this independent assessment. The independent assessment and report was conducted and prepared by Andrew Dunn, during the period March to June 2011

2

CONTENTSAcknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................... 2Contents............................................................................................................................................................... 3Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................... 4Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................. 5Terms of Reference for the Independent Assessment.......................................................................5Methodology....................................................................................................................................................... 5International Frameworks on Child Care and Education ................................................................6Georgia policy context on child care and “special Needs” education...........................................6Background to the management of child care provision in Georgia............................................6Social Work Practice in Georgia............................................................................................................. 8Disability and education........................................................................................................................... 8Deinstitutionalisation from the Boarding Schools .............................................................................9Objectives........................................................................................................................................................ 9Approach......................................................................................................................................................... 9Findings taken from the NGO assessment and reports................................................................9Outcomes for the assessed children..................................................................................................... 9Deinstitutionalisation from Child Care Institutions ........................................................................10Findings taken from the Save the Children Report......................................................................10Objectives..................................................................................................................................................... 10Approach...................................................................................................................................................... 11Outcomes for the assessed children.................................................................................................. 11Independent assessment - the Deinstitutionalisation process ...................................................12Children reintegrated with families................................................................................................... 12Foster care placements........................................................................................................................... 12Small Group Homes.................................................................................................................................. 12The Education Facilities......................................................................................................................... 13The Child Care Institutions.................................................................................................................... 13The Social Services Agency and (I)NGO Field Workers.............................................................14Independent Assessment Findings......................................................................................................... 14Deinstitutionalisation.............................................................................................................................. 14Information Management...................................................................................................................... 15Policy.............................................................................................................................................................. 29Legislation.................................................................................................................................................... 29Partnership and cooperation................................................................................................................ 29Case management..................................................................................................................................... 29Recommendations......................................................................................................................................... 29Appendix 1........................................................................................................................................................ 31Persons met and meetings held.......................................................................................................... 31Appendix 2........................................................................................................................................................ 34Bibliography................................................................................................................................................ 34

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn March and April 2010 an independent assessment of the deinstitutionalisation of children from special education boarding schools and child care institutions was carried out with the support of UNICEF and in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs and (I)NGOs notably EveryChild, Save the Children and the Children of Georgia. The methodology used in the independent assessment was key informant interviews and visits to reintegrated children, children in foster care, small group homes, child care institutions, special education facilities and to Social Service Agency offices. Discussions were also held with ministry headquarter staff and the staff of (I)NGOs.In common with other CIS/CEE countries Georgia is working to change the impact of previous policies of institutionalisation of children with disabilities and children from poor families. The use institutional care in Georgia had been less widespread than neighbouring countries and the country had already made significant efforts to reduce the number of children in these places from 5,000+ in 2005 down to about 1200 in 2009. Many children had already been returned to live with parents, placed in foster care or placed in newly established small group homes. Reflecting current international child care policies and practices, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs Child Action Plan for 2008 to 2011 had “deinstitutionalisation” as one of its three main goals. A particular challenge for this Ministry was that the caseload of children still residing in the child care institutions were expected to be “difficult to place” or hard to reintegrate cases.In essence the independent assessment examined the deinstitutionalisation process (1) from 8 special education boarding schools and (2) from 10 child care institutions during the period 2010 to March 2011. (1) EveryChild together with Children of Georgia assessed 8 Ministry of Education and Science special education boarding schools and the social and education needs of 306 children who were enrolled. 54% of these children were assessed as not requiring special education. Few of the schools were found to be delivering quality education and most of the premises were in a poor state of repair. 111 children were successfully reintegrated into their biological families, 9 children were placed in guardianship with relatives and 6 children were placed in kinship care. The challenges that remain are that 48 children could not be immediately reintegrated and were transferred into the child care institutions. Many of the children assessed as requiring special education remained in the boarding school system. A small number of children assessed as having learning difficulties were enrolled into the state public school system after a very brief orientation to inclusive education within these schools. The positive policy outcomes were that the Ministry of Education and Science decided to close 5 poorly functioning schools and to henceforth limit admissions to special schools only to children who had been assessed as needing special education. One of the negative aspects was that the decision to close 2 schools was counter to the assessing (I)NGO recommendations. The speed of the closure of these schools left the NGOs under pressure, led to hastily planned reintegration and in the view of the NGOs, placement of children that was insufficiently prepared and not necessarily in their best interests. 4

(2) During 2010 and up to March 2011, the social workers of the Social Service Agency supported by NGOs, particularly Save the Children, assessed 557 children living in 10 child care institutions, of these 217 children were supported to return home or had a new non-institutional placement. Relatively few children were placed in small group homes. Major challenges to the reintegration of children were chronic poverty and homelessness of the children’s families. The Social Service Agency social workers numbering about 200 are relatively new in post and have few services or resources to offer families, to support them to care for the children. Most of the social workers interviewed and the directors of child care institutions thought that with more time and resources, more children could have been returned to live with their families. The independent assessment found children had been placed into families that were often very poor, but that the parents wanted to care for their children and that there were no reports of child protection concerns. Where needed and available financial and material resources had been appropriately allocated. The children had been followed up by social workers. Those children visited in foster care appeared to be enjoying good standards of care. The placements seemed appropriate and in the child’s best interests. The Social Service Agency social workers were supervising the child and foster parents.The independent assessment findings deal with both deinstitutionalisation processes together as the issues are similar. The achievement of the deinstitutionalisation process is that out of 863 children who were assessed, only 441 of these children remain in the institutions. Five boarding schools and 2 child care institutions have been closed. The major challenge is to develop and administer a State and NGO reintegration package that overcomes the remaining financial and housing barriers to reintegration. For those children, who for child protection reasons, cannot immediately return home the challenge is to establish a bank of foster parents living close to the child’s home area, to enable a child to be matched and placed with foster parents. The second option is to ensure that there are places available in small group homes for children who cannot settle in family life or who are unwilling to be fostered.The information system being used is not yet adequate to allow child care placement planning. The policy direction with regard to deinstitutionalisation is positive, but the current legislation is not supportive of a developing professional social work service. Issues of parental responsibility are not covered and the grounds for admitting a child into care are out dated. The partnership and cooperation between government and non-government organisations has in the main been positive and a good learning experience. The potential to develop public private partnerships to deliver child care and alternative care services is considerable.The major recommendations are that the information and case management systems need upgrading, which will help in the delivery of best practice services. Similarly it is important that foster care and small group home places are made available close to the families and children that require them. As the Child Action Plan is in its final year it is recommended that this plan is reviewed and consideration given to a new goal of developing family support services and prevention. Also that the gatekeeping policy is further developed to cover admission to 24-hour care and the allocation of family support services.

5

ACRONYMSCCI - Child Care Institution GASW - Georgia Association of Social WorkersGoG - Government of GeorgiaINGO - International Non Government OrganisationMOES - Ministry of Education and ScienceMOLHSA - Ministry of Labour, Health and Social AffairsNGO - Non-Government OrganisationSC - Save the ChildrenSGH - Small Group HomeSSA - Social Service Agency of MOLHSAUNCRC - United Nations Convention on the Rights of The ChildUNICEF - United Nations Children’s FundTERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTThe task was to conduct an independent assessment around the challenges and successes of the deinstitutionalisation process and outcomes for children to inform future work.The Consultant’s role was to assess the quality of de-institutionalization efforts of Ministry of Education and Science (MoES,) Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA) and the outcomes for deinstitutionalized children as supported by UNICEF and NGO partners. Specifically, the consultant looked at the process of de-institutionalization in 2-3 institutions within the sphere of MoLHSA, and the 5 boarding schools within the sphere of MOES that were assessed and closed in 2009-2010.METHODOLOGYThe assessment was carried out during two visits to Georgia by the consultant from 23 March to 1 April 2011 and from 1 May 2011 to 7 May 2011. For the purposes of the independent assessment a desk review was carried out using information collected for and during a prior visit to Georgia to work with UNICEF and partners on the Child Care Reform Process, (this included visits to Tbilisi Infants Home, Rustavi Child Care Institution, and small group homes in Tbilisi and Rustavi.) For the independent assessment key informant interviews or meetings were held with staff from MoLHSA, MoES, UNICEF, INGOs and NGOs. MoLHSA, MOES, Save the Children, EveryChild, Children of Georgia and Georgia Association of Social Workers have provided data on the deinstitutionalisation process. Information has been used from key informant interviews and visits to:

Households/families caring for of reunited children x 5. Foster Parent/Families x 4. Child Care Institutions; Tbilisi, Tskneti, Surami, Telavi. Small Group Homes in Dusheti, Telavi, Tbilisi and Rustavi. Special Education Boarding School, Tbilisi. Public School – Gurjaani.

6

Social Work Offices in Telavi, Dusheti, Lagodekhi, Khasuri, Isani-Sangori and Rustavi.For reasons of confidentiality the names of children, their families and foster parents have not been included.This report deals separately with the deinstitutionalisation in the Special Boarding Schools and the Child Care Institutions, as they were separate processes. However the findings and recommendations are broadly similar and are dealt with together.INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS ON CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION The child’s right to education, without discrimination is to be found in a number of declarations and conventions. The right to education is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enhanced in Article 13 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which state that: “Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages” and “Elementary education shall be compulsory.” Articles 28 and 29 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child describe a child’s right to education in similar terms. In 1990 the World Conference on Education for All and the Dakar Framework for Action in 2000 have added frameworks for achieving the right to education. The Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education and a Framework for Action was agreed in 1994, informed by the principle of inclusion and by the recognition of the need to work towards “schools for all” - an important contribution to the agenda for achieving education for all and for making schools educationally more effective. Internationally the trend has been to try and include children with special needs in mainstream schools. The transfer of children out of these special boarding schools is in line with these frameworks.Towards the end of the last decade the policy in Georgia had been shifting to take into account the developing international framework on child care and protection:

• The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly the right of the child with regard to family care• Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec (2005)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the rights of children living in residential institutions• Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children recognised by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 2009.

GEORGIA POLICY CONTEXT ON CHILD CARE AND “SPECIAL NEEDS” EDUCATIONThe trend over the last five to ten years in Georgia and other CEE/CIS countries has been to reduce the number of children living in large institutions. The placement of children in institutions was a result of social policy to help parents and the State manage the effects of poverty and disability. In general special boarding schools were used for children with disabilities and learning difficulties; child care institutions for children living in poverty and facing other social problems. In Georgia the culmination of policy development, donor support together with advocacy and support from UNICEF and NGOs enabled MoES to reassess it’s provision of 7

education for children with special needs and MoLHSA to begin a more systematic process of deinstitutionalisation in 2010. This process is still underway and is projected to continue through 2011 and 2012.The immediate context for the deinstitutionalisation in 2010/2011 are the recent developments to the child care system in Georgia with Government’s Children’s Action Plan (2008-2011) and the Child Care Standards. According to UNICEF, FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT the data from the Government of Georgia indicates continued decreases in the number of children in residential institutions from approximately 5,000 in 2005 down to 1060 in 2010. The number of institutions decreased from 46 to 18 during the same time period. It is stated that the decrease was largely achieved through an expansion of alternatives, including foster care (over 600 placements in 2010 compared with 490 in 2008,) community based family support / day care centres, particularly for children with disability (22 in 2010,) and new small group homes (11 in 2010.) The increase in availability of alternative care is in tandem with improved gatekeeping at district level from guardianship and care panels who decide and monitor placements of children. MoLHSA is leading the deinstitutionalisation process, and is making a major effort to close the remaining large institutions for children in the coming two years.BACKGROUND TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CHILD CARE PROVISION IN GEORGIAUntil 2009 the MOES managed the provision of children’s social services through the Child Care Division. This included both child care and education for children with special needs and/or who came from families with social problems. The services provided were:

• Special Boarding Schools• The Child Care Institutions• Family support through guardianship and care• Adoption Admission to these facilities or the provision of services was, prior to reforms, via the Commission for Minors.In 2001 MOES decentralised child care services to raion level with the provision of education resource centres to which were attached social service centres. 18 social workers were appointed to cover the 67 raions. From 2004 the Commission for Minors was dissolved and decision-making regarding the provision of child care services was decentralised to regional level through the establishment of Guardianship and Care Panels. Part of their role was to monitor and oversee the decision making by the social workers. They had a gatekeeping role and monitored the use of state services and resources.Admissions to boarding school was normally through the education resource centre but it appears that in some cases admission was done directly by the staff of the school at the request of the parents. Not all children in the boarding schools have a disability or any special education needs. Similarly some children the child care institutions were disabled and have special learning needs.

FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Child Protection Section input into UNICEF Annual Workplan 20118

In some of the cases the parents’ of children in the child care institutions have had their parental rights suspended or restricted by the courts. But more usually admission and monitoring is the responsibility of the guardianship and care panels.

9

In 2009 the responsibility for social services for children was transferred to the Social Service Agency in the MoLHSA. Social workers were appointed to each raion and now there are 200 social workers working at raion level. Responsibility for managing children’s homes became the task of the State Care Agency that also manages facilities for the elderly. Boarding Schools and assessment of children with special education needs remained with MoES.Social Work Practice in GeorgiaUntil recent years the child care in Georgia was an administrative task allocating child care services to those children who met the criteria of beneficiary as provided for in the law. Poverty, homelessness, single parenthood, disability, neglect were criteria by which children were viewed as being deprived of parental care. Services were limited financial support or the provision of residential care. Social workers were not trained in counselling, casework and effective case management was rarely practised. It seems that once a child was placed in residential care little work was done with families in regard to assisting eventual reintegration with the family. Social workers were desk bound and confined their practice to individual care plans with the child. Professional social work in Georgia is in its early stages of development. Although MoLHSA Social Services Agency (SSA,) has posted social workers to every raion, they are more concentrated in regional centres and the capital. These government social workers have received 3 months social work certificate training. There are now graduate social work and master’s courses at universities in Georgia, but these are recent developments and only one or two groups of students have so far graduated. The graduate students are usually employed by NGOs who offer more rewarding terms and conditions. The last three years has seen rapid development of social services for children, there is the provision of day care and targeted social assistance to very poor families. Social workers with the SSA have limited experience and few resources for the work in preventing family breakdown or working with parents to enable children to return to live with families. Although there is now a system of referral for child abuse cases, in reality the social workers have a limited but growing experience of handling child abuse cases. Disability and educationGeorgia has been practising the medical model with regard to education for children with disabilities, which were seen to arise from difficulties or impairments in the child or young person. Gradually being introduced is a more inclusive social model looking at barriers to learning, participation and changing the education environment. However Georgia still has some progress to make and is now addressing the problem by looking at children with “special education needs” and categorising children according to their educational need. While moving in the right direction Georgia‘s movement on inclusive policies, cultures and practices is in its infancy.There are similarities in the deinstitutionalization from boarding schools and the children’s homes. The policy outcomes were shared, the methodology was similar but some of the issues with regard to process and implementation have overlaps but are distinct, and this report will deal with the processes separately.

10

DEINSTITUTIONALISATION FROM THE BOARDING SCHOOLS In 2010, MoES took the initiative to work with UNICEF and NGO partners to assess 306 children attending 8 special education boarding schools, which in practice closely resembled large scale child care institutions. There was an assessment of the children’s education and care needs, which appears to have been thorough and comprehensive. The following schools were assessed:1. Samtredia public school # 15 2. Kokhnari School # 2 in Chokhatauri raion (Now closed)3. Kutaisi Public School # 45 with residential care for children with hearing impairments 4. Chiatura Auxiliary Public School # 12 with residential care 5. Gurjaani School with residential care for children with cerebral palsy (Now closed)6. Zemo Bodbe School (Now closed)7. Gumati School # 2 in Kutaisi (Now closed)8. Kachreti # 2 Public School (Now closed)ObjectivesAccording to the interim report FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT the project aims were to study and assess children currently residing in 8 special boarding schools, establish their needs in the “process of optimization” and carry out deinstitutionalisation by offering the children the best alternative child care services. It was expected that the majority of children would be deinstitutionalized and recommendations provided for the smooth process of the schools’ optimisation.The initial expectation was for a project duration of 4 months. This timeframe was realistic for the assessment phase but had to be extended for a further 6 months to allow for planned reintegration, and transfer of children into the SSA care system or transfer of children to other special schools. It was strongly stated that the project recommendations would be built on the best interests of the child. ApproachFor the NGOS, 2 teams of psychologists/experts and 8 teams of social workers were involved in the implementation of the project, supervised by two social work technical advisors. The approach was to undertake a social work assessment and an assessment of the child’s educational needs. The social work assessment of the child’s needs included 4-5 weeks observation of the child, interviews with the child and carers to find out the child’s needs and interests. The child’s family was also visited “to find out the child’s needs and identifying opportunities for their re-integration; assessing family reliability, motivation for the child’s return in the family, socio-economic conditions of the child’s family, reasons for the child’s institutionalisation, etc.”

FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT EveryChild, Children of Georgia 2010. Interim Report, Assessment of 8 Special Boarding Schools with the Aim of their Optimization11

Findings taken from the NGO assessment and reportsWith regard to the provision of education the Interim Report FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT found that the “Academic process at Zemo Bodbe, Gurjaani, Gumati and Kokhnari boarding schools are practically not taking place.” 54% of the children in thee 8 schools were assessed as not needing special education, for example in Kutaisi School for Children with Hearing Impairments, 13 out of the 55 children were found to have normal hearing. Nearly all the children in the assessed left the boarding schools for holidays. Several of the schools were described as being in a dilapidated condition or unhygienic. During 2010, MOES closed 5 of these boarding schools. The immediate closure of 2 (Kokhnari and Gumati) was recommended by the NGOs in their interim report. The report further recommended the cessation of education activities but not the residential child care at Zemo Bodbe, and the closure of Gurjaani School within 12 months. The immediate additional closure of Kachreti, Zemo-Bodbe and Gurjaani special schools was decided upon by MoES who did not follow the letter of the NGO recommendations in this respect. The view of the NGOs involved in the project was that these additional closures led to rushed decision making with regard to; placements, poor preparation of children, families and schools where inclusive practices for children with learning difficulties had to be quickly learnt. The NGOs thought that some decisions were not in the child’s best interests.Outcomes for the assessed childrenAccording to the EveryChild/Children of Georgia Report FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT 33 children enrolled on the boarding schools were not actually attending the schools or had “graduated.” These children could not be found. The project social work teams assessed the remaining 273 children: the placements after the care planning and review at the end of the project are reported as the following:

Remained in Special Education Boarding Schools or other boarding education87 children remain as boarders in special education schools (either in the same institutions, or they were transferred to another special school after the closure of the one they originally attended.) These children are presumably the children found to have special education needs though this is not explicitly stated in the reports.6 children were enrolled into Kachreti Vocational School as boarders and all are expected to return to their families after graduation. Transferred into the care system48 children were transferred to child care institutions managed by MoLHSA State Care Agency (SCA.) These were Telavi, Kojori, Rustavi and Tbilisi Child Care institutions.3 children were placed in small group homes (1 in SOS village in Kutaisi, 1 in Breath SGH in Kutaisi, and 1 in a SGH in Etseri.)2 children were placed in foster care.Reintegrated with their families 111 children were reintegrated back with their biological families.9 children were placed in guardianship with relatives. FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT EveryChild, Children of Georgia 2010. Interim Report, Assessment of 8 Special Boarding Schools with the Aim of their Optimization FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT EveryChild and Children of Georgia 2011, Draft Final Report “In Attempt to Better Lives” Assessment of 8 Special Boarding Schools managed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia.

12

6 children were placed in kinship care.Unresolved1 case still remains open. This is the case of a girl with challenging behaviour from Kachreti, for whom a suitable placement was not found. While placing children with their families EveryChild referred 13 cases of a “child being in need of protection” to SSA. According to EveryChild these children were referred through the mandatory child abuse referral procedures. FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT EveryChild social workers were able to assist reintegrated children with modest material assistance and to refer the families to the SSA for targeted social assistance. EveryChild continued to monitor and support all children transferred to new placements or returned home for the duration of the project.

DEINSTITUTIONALISATION FROM CHILD CARE INSTITUTIONS The process of deinstitutionalization has been on going in Georgia for many years. Government and children’s organisations have acknowledged the living conditions in these large dilapidated institutions as poor and that they do not serve the child’s best interests. At the beginning of 2010 there were 22 child care institutions in Georgia managed by MoLHSA. Ten of these institutions were assessed and care plans made for the children. During 2010 MoLHSA closed the institutions in Dusheti and LagodekhiFindings taken from the Save the Children ReportFrom the Save the Children Report, FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT their 2010 children’s assessment showed that most of the 346 children in the six institutions FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT jointly assessed were from the regions where the institutions were located. More than 97% of resident children had at least one parent alive and known. The most frequent reason for admission into the institutions was poverty. Other reasons included parental divorce/remarriage, inadequate parental care, family homelessness, family violence and alcohol abuse and mothers’ absence due to imprisonment or emigration. The assessment resulted in individual service plans for all children, and the reintegration of 144 children into their families and communities.ObjectivesThe problem formulation by GoG in the 2008-2011 Children’s Governmental Action Plan FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT was that “Wide use of “large-scale” care institutions is harmful for the development of the child.” The goal was for the state, through different sectors, to ensure emotional, psychosocial and individual development of children deprived of care in the family or in an environment resembling family care. The objective was to “Ensure high-quality, needs-based, individual and varied services for children in need by the state care system at the local level.” The objective was to be achieved by: FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Joint order of the Minister of Labour, Health, and Social Affairs of Georgia, the Minister of Interior of Georgia and the Minister of Education of Georgia on “Procedures for Child Protection Referral and adoption of forms” March 2010, Tbilisi FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Save the Children in Georgia, 2010. Rebuilding Lives Project, September 3, 2004 – September 2, 2010 Final Report FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Please see Save the Children 2010, Rapid Assessment of Residential Childcare Institutions in Georgia, Surami, Tskneti, Saguramo, Aspindza, Tashiskari and Tbilisi FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Decree of the Georgian Government #869, December 10, 2009, Tbilisi, on approving 2008-11 Children’s Action Plan 13

1. Developing family substitute services;2. Development of a robust gatekeeping and decision-making system;3. Closing the majority of large-scale child care institutions by 2012 and4. Awareness raising regarding these processes.Approach

Assessment and decision makingWorking together, the NGOs (usually Save the Children) and SSA Social Workers conducted rapid assessments of 6 child care institutions using tools and methods developed by Our Home Association (Poland)/Save the Children (SC) and EveryChild. These assessments were to firstly, look at the “optimization possibilities” of these institutions through assessing the infrastructure, facilities, human resources and care of the children. It was thought that these homes could be transformed and have another use such as a small group home or day care centre. Secondly assessments were made of the psychosocial needs of the children and whether these needs could be better met in a non-institutional placement. The methodology FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT used to assess the children in care and their families was similar for all the institutions and included a database jointly designed by the SSA and Save the Children for the children’s document review. For the comprehensive assessment of individual children and their families, the standard statutory social workers’ methodology was used. This is an initial assessment of the child, then the family followed by completing a full comprehensive assessment of the child and the family. Save the Children and SSA assembled teams of social workers numbering from 9 to 22 personnel to conduct the assessments during February, March and April 2010. Stage one of the process was looking at the documentation that was available to provide information on:• Resident children; their numbers, age, gender and place of origin.• Issues related to children’s placement in residential care (where the children lived before placement, who made the placement decision, the reasons for the decision and length of stay in institutional care.)• Children’s families (number of children with parents and families, frequency of contact with the children and how many children have siblings in institutions and/or elsewhere.)• Education of resident children (school enrollment, grade level, school performance), and• Health of resident children (including possible disabilities.)Stage two of the process was individual interviews with the child followed by visits and interviews with the family. Provision was made for 10 days to complete the child assessment, 25 days to undertake the family assessment and then prepare a care plan to be discussed by the NGO and SSA social workers conducting the assessment of the institution, before taking the recommendations to the guardianship and care panel for ratification. The social worker who assessed the child was not always the same social worker who visited the family.Usually working independently, SSA social workers assessed the needs of children in 4

FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Save the Children, 2010, Rapid Assessment of Residential Child Care Institutions in Georgia 2010. Surami Childcare Institution14

other child care institutions, FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT but they used a similar approachSupport for reintegration, new placements and follow upAlthough many of the reintegrated children spent time with their families during holiday periods, all children assessed as being able to return home, visited their family at least once in the month prior to reintegration. Usually there was six months pre reunification or new placement work completed with the child, family, foster parents or the small group homes. Families were assisted to apply for targeted social assistance, vouchers for food or day care where this was appropriate and Save the Children had available financial and material assistance to overcome barriers to reintegration such as clothing, bedding, facilities for the child at home. In some cases rent was paid or the home was renovated prior to the return of the child. This budget was limited and was not able to meet all material needs. Generally the children were followed up and visited until the end of the project. SSA social workers are obliged to visit for 6 months.Outcomes for the assessed childrenFrom March 2010 until today 557 children were assessed in 10 children’s homes, by the SSA and NGO partners. (This figure does not include the children in Satnoeba and Momavli Sakhli Child Care Institutions where 38 and 29 children have just been assessed in 2011.) Out of the 557 children who were assessed, 217 children went home or had a new non-institutional placement.

Remained in 24 hour residential care or transferred to a boarding school295 children did not have a change of placement and remained in their original child care institution.11 children were transferred to other child care institutions to be nearer their families or relatives.4 children were placed in boarding school catering for children talented at mathematics.12 children were transferred to small group homes.3 children were placed in children’s homes run by the church by guardianship orders.Reintegrated with their families, adopted or fostered170 children were reintegrated with their families.6 children were placed for adoption.17 children were placed in foster care; the majority of these placements were with relatives.5 children left the institutional care to be married.13 children were found to be over 18 years old.21 children could not be found.

FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Dusheti, Logodekhi, Tsalenjikha, Makhinjauri (Infants Home )15

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT - THE DEINSTITUTIONALISATION PROCESS

Children reintegrated with familiesAll the reintegrated children that were visited were from poor families. For most of these children the fathers were deceased or absent. However there were no immediate concerns from social workers or reports that these children were at risk of harm or in need of protection. Two of the children visited in one family had been listed as a child protection case by the NGO concerned who had wanted a residential care placement for the children who were previously in a special education boarding school. The mother refused to admit the children into an institution, wanted the children back home and the initial concern that they were at risk from a stepfather disappeared when he left the household. Another child reintegrated from a special boarding school who had also been previously placed in an infant’s home was not attending the local school because he said he had no suitable shoes. Several reintegrated children were visited who had received appropriate financial assistance from NGOs to renovate the facilities in the family home for their return. One family had received help with rent for housing and had been linked to an NGO project providing income generation projects; they received 20 chickens.Foster care placementsAll the foster parents visited had been assessed and registered by SSA social workers. One of the foster parents had been a staff member at one of the closed child care institutions. This Georgian couple were looking after 3 Azerbaijani sisters. In one of the cases an aunt was looking after 2 children after her home had been renovated by an NGO. All of the foster care cases appeared to be in the child’s best interests and foster parents were aware of the possible eventual reintegration of some of the children with their parent(s). Foster parent allowances were being paid and the families supervised by SSA social workers. According to the social worker in Khasuri some of the foster parents registered by her office had had children placed who originated from Tbilisi.Small Group HomesThe 5 small group homes visited (run by 3 different NGOs) are consistent in their approach and team of staff. Often there is a non-resident NGO coordinator who may be responsible for more than one home or other projects. Usually there are two staff (a married couple) who provide care on a 24-hour basis for the five weekdays who are then replaced by another couple at the weekends. Some of the homes had very high material conditions using additional NGO income as well as the state grant. One SGH was managing on the state grant. Relatively few children had been placed in the SGHs as a result of the deinstitutionalization process in the past two years. For instance in Telavi 22 children were in SGHs, 15 had been transferred from the Telavi Child Care Institution prior to the 2010 deinstitutionalisation programme, 5 had been transferred from institutions in other regions and 2 were new admissions from the community. One home in Rustavi had admitted “street children” referrals from Tbilisi. However there were 7 transfers to the Dusheti Small Group Home from the Dusheti Child Care Institution. Many of the children in SGHs received visits from their families. Two children in a Rustavi SGH were being placed with foster parents but otherwise the SGHs are becoming permanent places of residence for the children. Several issues arise from the visits to small group homes:

• Some of the SGHs reported having no control over admissions. The Guardianship and Care Panels can send them children if there are available places. The mission 16

statements of the SGHs that state that they provide care for only certain client groups are not always respected. • SSA Social Workers are not visiting the children on a regular basis in some of the SGHs particularly in Tbilisi.• When married couples are employed, it seems that if one has to leave or is dismissed then both are most likely to have to leave.

The Education FacilitiesTbilisi Public School 200 is a school for children with special needs. It has recently been renovated. 155 children attend the school of which 96 are boys and 59 girls. 125 children are boarders of which 35% are from Tbilisi. 15 are day pupils and another 15 attend as day pupils but also stay on after wards for day care. After the closure of the 5 special education boarding schools the Tbilisi school received 32 transfers. Only one child has not settled. After the closure of the Special Education Boarding Schools, Gurjaani Public School has enrolled 3 children with special learning needs. The children have individual learning plans and the school has been supported by psychologists employed by the NGO Children of Georgia, who are also working with other public schools in the Gurjaani area. The school now has an inclusive education coordinator and 20 staff have received training to prepare them for teaching children with special needs. The children receive transport from a school bus funded by the local municipality.The Child Care InstitutionsMost of the child care institutions are large and in need of repair. Those that have had children reintegrated or transferred appear to have kept their staffing complement. In general the directors of the child care institutions expressed satisfaction with regard to the cooperation between themselves, the SSA and the NGO social workers during the period when deinstitutionalization was an “active” project. According to the Director of Tbilisi Child Care Institution, she enjoyed good support from the Save the Children and SSA social workers. At the start of the deinstitutionalization assessment exercise in 2009 there were 72 children in the institution and 34 were identified for reintegration. By August 2010, 20 children had been reintegrated with their families. The Director felt there was no need for these children to be in the institution and once reintegrated these children continued to attend the same public school as they did while in the institution. With regard to the 14 children identified but not reintegrated there were several reasons given:

• Grandparents were actually the caretakers and they were assessed as either too old or in poor health to care for the children.• Parents were unable to demonstrate parental skills.• One case of a child from an IDP family who was not apparently not reintegrated when the family was allocated a house in Mestre.• Poverty to the extent that it could not be mitigated by the Save the Children social fund.• For 4 children whose family lived on the outskirts of Tbilisi, there was apparently no nearby school. Access to education appears to have been the issue.• Parental choice; some parents who had homes were too busy working to provide care.In the opinion of the Director of Tbilisi Child Care Institution there was no clear boundary between these cases and the cases that were reintegrated. Since August 2010

17

5 children have been admitted, 2 from a special school and 3 child protection cases. It appears from the information given that if there was access to a social fund or a reintegration allowance was available, 10 children could be reintegrated immediately. 47 of the children have siblings in institutions and 10 children have younger siblings living with their parents at home. On 16 March 2010 there were 48 children at Surami Child Care Institution. The joint assessment was completed in June 2010. By this time, 6 children were reintegrated, 2 children placed in foster care, 2 aged out, 3 got married and left the home. In November 2010 a further 5 children were reintegrated by SSA social workers. Since June 2010 there have been 4 new admissions. At the time of the Independent Assessment visit, Surami Child Care Institution accommodated 33 children, of which half go home for school holidays. The Director thought that these children could be reintegrated if there was help to improve living conditions.SSA and NGO social workers jointly assessed Tskneti Child Care Institution in 2010. Apparently at the start of the assessment there were 102 children the institution. The new Director in post said of these 10 were reintegrated and 33 were placed in small group homes all over Georgia. This information regarding small group home placement is at variance with the total number of children placed from all institutions reported as 17.Telavi Child Care Institution will be assessed during 2011. It currently accommodates 83 children. 7 children were transferred from Lagodekhi Home so that it could close in March 2010. A total of 24 children were admitted from Gurjaani, Zemo Bodbe and Kachreti Special boarding Schools during November 2010. There have been 12 additional admissions for other reasons since November 2011. It is reported that despite initial concerns the new arrivals have settled in well.The Social Services Agency and (I)NGO Field WorkersMeetings were held with SSA social workers, lawyers and other staff at Telavi, Isani-Sangori, Khasuri, Dusheti, and in Lagodekhi. Meetings were also held with social workers and other staff from Save the Children, Children of Georgia, EveryChild and UNICEF. Discussions were also held with staff at SSA Headquarters.For the most part social work staff from government and NGOs viewed their joint collaboration on deinstitutionalisation as positive. The partnership between SSA and the NGOs with regard to deinstitutionalization from the child care institutions appears to have been more effective than the collaboration between MOES, SSA and the NGOs involved in working with the special education boarding schools. From the SSA perspective they were not adequately informed about the process and were later presented with a number of difficult cases to which they had to react. From the NGO perspective MoES did not follow their recommendations and they felt that the SSA was unwilling to act on properly presented referrals.At a field level, both NGO and SSA social workers thought that with more time and resources a greater number of children could have been reintegrated. In discussion with both groups of social workers it was difficult to discern the grounds and criteria on which decisions are made to place a child in 24-hour care or to reintegrate a child into a family. The assessment form used to inform decision making with regard to reintegration of children into families was not specifically designed for this purpose but is the generic 18

child care and protection assessment form used by SSA social workers. Its purpose is really to assess rather than review a case.All SSA social workers were concerned about the relative absence of support services to assist families continue to care for reintegrated children. They were also concerned at the limited travel allowances available to them to conduct visits to a child’s family.The social work office nearest to the residential care facility or the foster parent undertakes the case management of the children in residential care. Where the children’s parents live outside that particular raion or region the work with the family is undertaken by another social worker from that area. It appears that in these cases without the support of the NGOs and their resources, communication between the different social workers is variable and they have struggled to effect reintegration plans.With the MoLHSA SSA training and placement of social workers in raion offices from 2009 onwards the social workers visited in Khasuri and Lagodheki had been reintegrating children with their families especially where the residential care setting and the family were in the raion, or a neighbouring raion in which they operated. In such cases they had full control of the case management and were not limited by travel expenses or communication with social workers in other raions or regions. In Khasuri, 5 children have been reintegrated since the end of the Save the Children partnership project. The SSA social worker has been particularly effective at reintegration, within Lagodekhi.INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

DeinstitutionalisationOut of 306 children in the 8 boarding schools, 138 are no longer living in large institutional education settings. 111 children are now living with their biological families. (33 children (ghosts) were not actually attending the boarding schools.) 87 children continue to remain in the state special boarding school system and 48 children were transferred into MoLHSA child care institutions. For the 557 children who were assessed in the child care institutions, 217 children went home or had a new non institutional placement, but 306 remained in institutional settings. The major achievement of the deinstitutionalisation process is that out of 863 children who were assessed, only 441 of these children remain in the institutions. The rest of the children are with their families, in alternative family care or living in small group homes. Five boarding schools and 2 child care institutions have been closed.The challenge is for a State and NGO reintegration package to be developed and administered that overcomes the remaining financial and housing barriers to reintegration. For those children who for child protection reasons cannot immediately return home the challenge is to establish a bank of foster parents living close to the child’s home area, to enable a child to be matched and placed with foster parents. The second option is to ensure that there are places available in small group homes for children who cannot settle in family life or who are unwilling to be fostered.19

Information ManagementAccurate up to date information with regard to children in 24-hour care has been difficult to obtain. The SSA, SCA and INGOs all collect data, but in different formats, at different intervals and for different purposes. Without good data it will be more difficult for the SSA and other organisations to plan and develop foster care, small group homes and other services, including field social work that are close to the child’s family. Total number of children in 24 hour public careYear Foster care Small Group Homes Child Care InstitutionsWith relatives Non relatives2009 105 1228January 2010 196 225 130 1244March 2011 129 913Admissions, discharges and transfers of children in to and within the 24 hour care system

in 2009 and 2010 Foster care Small Group Homes Child Care institutionsYear Entering Leaving Entering Leaving Entering Leaving2009 290 182 177 12 329 2422010 158 308 91 49 325 309

Table - Child Care Institutions 2009 - 2011

2011 March SSA

2010 JanuarySCA 2009 December MOES

Child Care Institutions Region Current StatusBoys

Girls

Number of children

1 Lagodekhi Kakheti Closed in 2010 Assessed by SSA 0 0 02 Dusheti Mtskheta-mtianeti Closed in 2010 Assessed by SSA & SC 0 0 03 Surami Shida kartli In service Assessed by SSA & SC in 2010 18 15 334 Tskneti Tbilisi In service Assessed by SSA & SC in 2010 44 19 635 Saguramo Mtskheta-mtianeti In service Assessed by SSA & SC in 2010 21 13 346 Aspindza Samtskhe javakheti In service Assessed by SSA & SC in 2010 3 3 67 Tashiskari Shida kartli In service Assessed by SSA & SC in 2010 12 3 158 Tbilisi Dighomi Tbilisi In service Assessed by SSA & SC in 2010 32 25 579 Tsalenjikha Samegrelo In service Assessed by SSA in 2010 26 15 4110 Makhinjauri (Infants) Adjara In service Assessed by SSA in 2010 24 21 4511 "momavlis sakhli" Tbilisi In Service Assessment in process by SSA, 2011 2912 "Satnoeba" Tbilisi In Service Assessment in process by SSA, 2011 21 19 4013 Tbilisi (Infants) Tbilisi In service To be assessed by SSA & SC in 2011 15914 Kodjori (Disability) Tbilisi In service To be assessed by SSA & SC in 2011 3015 Telavi Kakheti In service To be assessed by SSA & SC in 2011 8716 Mestia Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti In service To be assessed by SSA & SC in 2011 1817 Zugdidi Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti In service To be assessed by SSA & SC in 2011 4018 Senaki (Disabilitiy) Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti In service To be assessed by SSA & SC in 2011 47

20

19 Kodjori Tbilisi In service 7020 Rustavi Kvemo Kartli In service 721 Batumi Adjara In service 5022 Kutaisi Imereti In Service/Opened in 2010 29 13 4223 Tbilisi child crisis center Tbilisi In service

230 146 913

21

As can be seen the figures are not complete, nor do the figures for entering and leaving necessarily correspond to the total numbers of children in the different placements. However the figures do show a reduction in the use of the child care institutions of 331 (25%) if the figures are accurate, as the SSA figures for reintegration’s from the child care institutions show that 256 children were reintegrated, otherwise left or were transferred to other placements. (See above)PolicyThe policy level decisions by GoG to accelerate the process of deinstitutionalisation from large child care institutions are appropriate and timely. This is in line with the UNCRC, and international guidance including specific observations from the Committee on the Rights of the Child. “The Committee recommends that the State party expedite the deinstitutionalization programme, including reunification with families and the recruitment of foster parents.”1The decision to transfer children not requiring special education to other public day schools is appropriate and better meets the right to education. It appears from the NGO assessment reports that the provision of education in the dilapidated boarding schools that were closed, was not to a minimum standard. The policy decision by MoES to ensure that enrolment its special boarding schools are only made after children have been assessed as requiring this provision is welcomed. The previous use of special education boarding schools to meet child care needs was inappropriate and although the transfer of these children to other placements especially to the child care institutions was precipitous and not well prepared it may, in the long term, be in the better interests of the affected children. If more time and more resources had been made available it would appear from the views of NGO and SSA social workers that they could have assisted more children to be reintegrated with families.The placement of children in 24-hour care and the reintegration of children into their families in Georgia takes place in an environment where single (pregnant) mothers are stigmatised, claiming maintenance from fathers is difficult and where there is a legal framework of “parental rights” rather than parental responsibilities. This coupled with poor access to social housing and many people (especially single mothers) living in poverty makes reintegration of children with their families a difficult process. This report acknowledges the hard work and skill of many social workers from the state and (I)NGOs that has led to the achievement of children returning to live with their families. LegislationThe current child care legislation does not assist decision making with regard to deinstitutionalisation or meet the demands of a modern child care and protection system that is increasingly being staffed by trained social workers. Currently the law is inadequate on the grounds or criteria for admitting a child into care and there is little guidance to social workers who may want to exercise caution with regard to reintegration of children into poor families. These difficult decisions with regard to returning children home in conditions of poverty may be obviated in the future if government reintegration allowances are made available together with donor/NGO funding for entitled cases.Partnership and cooperationThe involvement of NGO partners has been critically important in terms of skilled social work, material resources and logistics but it has been sometimes necessarily constrained 1 COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, , 2008, CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF THE CONVENTION. Concluding observations: GEORGIA22

by project timeframes and resource allocation. The cooperation between government and NGOs delivering: day care, foster care and small group home residential care through public - private partnerships has considerable potential with regard to future choice and the range of services. Case managementIf the system of case management had been more efficient then the need to reassess all the children in the child care institutions would not have been necessary. It would have been a matter of reviewing the cases in the light of the change in policy towards family care and the availability of family support services. The work required from the social worker to effect reintegration usually concerns creating change at the level of the family rather than at the level of the child. The present system of the social work office closest to the child care institution holding the case does not lend itself to intensive work with the child’s family, who may be at a distance from the institution and the social worker. Having one social worker for the child and another for the family may save money on travel but requires very effective communication. The allocation of one social worker as key worker to both the family and child would be better practice. Likewise for the current assessments it would be better practice for one social worker to assess both the child and the family. At the end of the assessment and reintegration with the specific child care institution/region/raion the responsibility for the next steps for further work with children and families on reintegration is still left with uncertainty as regards the decision-making on the case.Social workers, directors of child care institutions and managers of small group homes think that the difference in the degree of risk/hardship between the cases that were reunified and many that remain in the institutions or were transferred to SGHs to be small. With more time to address relationship issues but also more critically extra resources to address housing and poverty issues they thought more children can return home. Save the Children social workers thought that with more time and resources a further 70 children could have been reintegrated with their familiesRECOMMENDATIONSIt is critical for the next phases of the deinstitutionalisation process that the government promise of paying reintegration allowances for a longer time while making available targeted social assistance, education materials and vouchers for food is realised.The most difficult cases in the child care institutions where there was evidence of child abuse or neglect in the family will need careful consideration. It is important for such cases that there are locally available placements of foster care or small group homes that will assist social workers to continue to work with the child and the family to find permanent solutions that are in the child’s best interests.It is important to review the current system of case management and to make improvements not only for the current deinstitutionalisation process but also for the development of good social work practice. It may also be necessary to review the current location of social workers, their caseloads and to develop a human resource development plan to place social workers closer to communities where there is poverty, homelessness and the greater number of children in need.23

There should no longer be a societal expectation that the government will provide residential care to children from poor families who say they are unable to provide for their children, or for families who have children with disabilities. A communication strategy should be developed to provide understanding of policies to support and promote family careEvidence from small group homes and the child care institutions is that children continue to be placed in 24-hour care for reasons of poverty, homelessness related to poverty and marital breakdown. There is a need to prevent children who live these circumstances from being placed in 24-hour care (institutions, the new SGHs and foster care) as this effectively: increases the current 24-hour care caseload; undermines the deinstitutionalization process; and otherwise utilizes the limited foster care and small group home resources. It will be important for the MoLHSA to revisit the policy on gatekeeping, so that it is not just restricting the placement of children in child care institutions but prevents the placement of children into 24-hour public care who could continue to live with their families with improved access to income support and other services. It is recommended that MoLHSA develop a definition for children in need that can be used as a criteria for providing services and it is also recommended that the grounds for admission into public care are more closely defined and that decisions with regard to the use of public care will be made on the grounds of whether the child has been abandoned or is suffering serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm and needs care and protection.There is a growing body of evidence FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT of the harm FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT done to babies and infants who are placed in child care institutions or large infants home and the placement of children under 5 years of age in residential care will gradually be phased out in Georgia and the infant homes closed. For the two infants homes it is recommended that the reintegration of children be given greater priority, coupled with placement of abandoned children for adoption and the use of foster care for all children under 6 years of age who need 24 hour care. The Child Action Plan is now in it’s final year. It is recommended that this plan is reviewed and a new plan developed with greater emphasis on the development of an effective social work service focusing on prevention and family support.

FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Prof. Kevin Browne, 2009, The Risk of Harm to Young Children in Residential Care, Save the Children and Better Care Network FILLIN \* MERGEFORMAT Save the Children, 2009, Keeping Children Out of Harmful Institutions. Why we should be investing in family-based care.

24

APPENDIX 1

Persons met and meetings held.Marika Zakareishvili General Education Development Division. Responsible for Boarding Schools Coordination. MoESTamar Oghlishvili School Director, Public School 1, Gurjaani Rusdan Turashvili School Inclusive Education Coordinator, GurjaaniMarina Ujmajuridze Director, Tbilisi boarding School N200Eka Saneblidze Deputy Head of Social Programme Department, SSA,Marina Shaghashvili Social Work Coordinator, Responsible for Coordination of Children Assessment at Residential Institutions Eteri Tskhakaia Head of Child Care Services SSAAmiran Daneshidze Ministry of Labour, Health and Social AffairsKetevan Demetrashvili Social Service Agency Nana Khechoshvili - Director, Telavi, Children’s InstitutionTina Gogiashvili Senior Social Worker, Telavi & 13 social workersKetevan Panchvidze Senior Social Worker, LagodekhiLado Chokadze Social Worker, SSA DushetiLali Undilashvili Social Worker, SSA DushetiJilda Chikaitdze Social Worker, SSA DushetiLela Merabishvili Director, Tbilisi Child Care Institution Mevlud Gogaladze Director, Surami Child Care InstitutionNana Gelashvili Social Worker, SSA Khasuri Eliso Maisuradze Director Tskneti Child Care InstitutionNatia Macharashvili Senior Social Worker, SSA Isani-Sangori Office Anna Mania Social Worker, SSA Isani-Sangori Office Nana Burduli Social Worker, SSA Isani-Sangori OfficeTako Tsiklauri Social Worker, SSA Isani-Sangori OfficeAaron Greenberg UNICEFNatia Partskhaladze UNICEF Andro Dadiani Director, EveryChild Maya Mgeliashvil Social Work, Technical Advisor, EveryChildLesley Orr Advisor, EveryChild Eteri Pataraia Social Worker EveryChild Eter Chuinidze Social Worker EveryChild Keti Vanisvili Social Worker EveryChildMaka Ghlighvashvili Social Worker EveryChildAna Jvelvgi Social Worker EveryChildKeti Kalnndze Social Worker EveryChildNona Tsikhelashvili Project Coordinator, EveryChild, DushetiNatia Mekvabauri Coordinator, Telavi Small Group Home, Breath GeorgiaNino Omanashvili Carer, Telavi Small Group Home, Breath GeorgiaGogita Tabasidze Carer, Telavi Small Group Home, Breath GeorgiaMaguli Shagashvili First Step Georgia Nino Nutsubidze Save the ChildrenNatia Deisadze Save the ChildrenLesley Wison Country Director, Save the Children, GeorgiaJaba Nachkebia Director, Children of GeorgiaNino Mikaia Psychologist, Children of GeorgiaTamuna Nakaidze Psychologist, Children of Georgia25

26

APPENDIX 2

BibliographyEveryChild, Children of Georgia 2010. Interim Report, Assessment of 8 Special Boarding Schools with the Aim of their OptimizationEveryChild and Children of Georgia 2011, Draft Final Report “In Attempt to Better Lives” Assessment of 8 Special Boarding Schools managed by the Ministry of Education and Science of GeorgiaJoint order of the Minister of Labour, Health, and Social Affairs of Georgia, the Minister of Interior of Georgia and the Minister of Education of Georgia on “Procedures for Child Protection Referral and adoption of forms” March 2010, Tbilisi Save the Children in Georgia, 2010. Rebuilding Lives Project, September 3, 2004 – September 2, 2010 Final ReportSave the Children 2010, Rapid Assessment of Residential Childcare Institutions in Georgia, Surami, Tskneti, Saguramo, Aspindza, Tashiskari and TbilisiDecree of the Georgian Government #869, December 10, 2009, Tbilisi, on approving 2008-11 Children’s Action Plan Committee on the Rights of the Child, , 2008, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding observations: GeorgiaProf. Kevin Browne, 2009, The Risk of Harm to Young Children in Residential Care, Save the Children and Better Care Network Save the Children, 2009, Keeping Children Out of Harmful Institutions. Why we should be investing in family-based care.

27